Minimizing Resistance to Change by Managing Employee Rivalries at Saudi Arabian Manufacturing Sector

Abstract

This study aimed to analyze the relationship between employees’ competition and organizational change in the Saudi Manufacturing Sector. Specifically, the researcher intended to assess the factors required by the practitioners in this sector to enhance organizational efficiency. To do that, the researcher observed the impact of healthy employee competition on employee resistance to change and how it contributes to the organization and employee’s performance. In this context, quantitative and qualitative analyses approaches were used to address the research objectives. The researcher used an explanatory sequential mixed research design which was constructed from web-based survey and semi-structured face-to-face interviews. Accordingly, 578 employees working in different organizations in Saudi Manufacturing Sector participated in the survey questionnaires. In addition, 30 employees working in panel boards manufacturing factory were purposely selected to participate in face-to-face interviews. Findings showed that majority of the participants assumed the existence of significant relationship between employees’ competition and their resistance to change. The competition factor found responsible for 22% of the variance in employees’ resistance to change in the Saudi manufacturing sector. Moreover, employee’s gender and nationality play crucial role in determining the level of healthy competition among the employees. Furthermore, employee’s hierarchical position found moderates their level of resistance to organizational changes but not the education level.

Share and Cite:

Alshehabeya, D.H. (2024) Minimizing Resistance to Change by Managing Employee Rivalries at Saudi Arabian Manufacturing Sector. Open Access Library Journal, 11, 1-20. doi: 10.4236/oalib.1111981.

1. Introduction

Increased globalization promotes diversity in modern organizations. Therefore, every employee experiences distinct psychological behavior that combines with other employees’ behavior to form a complex organization behavior. This complexity needs to be maintained and managed for achieving healthy competition among the employees. On the other hand, the employees’ efficiency and effectiveness can be measured by evaluating the factors that impact the employees’ performance. Henceforth, an organization’s management develops programs that enhance the employees’ performance and reduce its risks on the company sustainability. These programs faced resistance from employees who are not welcoming the changes. Managing this resistance requires a comprehensive approach that includes effective change management, fostering a collaborative work environment, and providing support to help employees adapt to new ways of working. Thus, changing management strategy should consider the evaluation of the employees’ competition and resistance factors that reduce work engagement and have direct impact on overall performance.

1.1. Problem Statement

Companies in the Saudi manufacturing sector are facing significant challenges to reduce the employees’ resistance to change, especially for management changes that reduce the employees’ authority or increase their workload. Such changes create competitive work environment but could impact company operation negatively. These encounters caused indolence, poor morale, and low engagement.

1.2. Research Objectives

The main objective of this study is to analyze the relationship between employees’ competition and change management in Saudi manufacturing sector. The researcher evaluated the impact of healthy employees’ competition on their resistance towards the changes.

1.3. Research Questions

Based on the above problem statement, the following questions were raised:

1) How is employees’ competition related to their resistance toward changes in organizations operate in Saudi manufacturing sector?

2) Is there a significant impact of employees’ competitions on employees’ performance in organizations that operate in Saudi manufacturing sector?

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Change Management

The change management is the process of continually adapting an organization’s direction, structure, and capabilities to meet the evolving needs of its internal and external stakeholders [1]. It involves planning, implementing, and monitoring organizational changes to achieve desired outcomes and minimize challenges. It follows a structured approach to transform individuals, teams, and the organization from current to desired future state. That approach shall consider source of change, drivers of change, shape of change, required supports to change and the impact of change.

The source of continuous changes can be from stakeholder analysis, social communication, idea generation platform, and intrapreneurship programs [2]. Moreover, the drive factors of successful organizational change are the crucial roles of leadership, communication, and organizational culture [3]. While other study emphasized on organizational learning, staff involvement, and resource allocation as significant predictors of organizational change [4]. Additionally, the narratives, organizational politics, and underlying ideologies shape such change management approaches [5]. Consistently, managers involvement in planning and implementation supports organizational changes effectiveness [6]. Hence, managing the change impact on people facing the change is more significant than the change itself [7].

On the other hand, the barriers to change can be categorized as psychological factor (fear of the unknown), cultural factor (resistance to new ways of working), political factor (vested interests), and structural factor (processes and systems) [8]. Successfully managing the emotional aspects of change by providing clarity, building trust, empowering employees, and supporting them through the transition can significantly reduce the employees’ fear of the unknow [9]. Moreover, creating a shared purpose, fostering employees’ participation, and making change self-reinforcing over time can help leaders to mitigate employee resistance to change [10].

Additionally, resistance from individuals or groups who have a vested interest can occur when proposed changes threaten the power, influence, or resources of certain stakeholders within an organization. To overcome this type of political barrier, the change management need to address the concerns of these stakeholders by involving them in the change process, demonstrating the benefits of the new system, and preserve their influence and decision-making authority within the new framework [11]. Moreover, the key reasons for change program failures include lack of Long-Term Effects of Change Management Strategies. Fruitful organizational changes require a focus on reinforcing new behaviors, building change capabilities, and aligning the organization’s culture, structure, and systems [12].

For instance, the impact of change management on employee attitude and employee performance in the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission found significant. Specifically, the study found that changes in technology, organizational structure, and communication had a beneficial impact on the performance of employees in the Nigerian public sector agency [13]. Furthermore, significant relationship between change management and the quality of health services in hospitals in Egypt was noticed [14]. These findings highlight the importance of effectively managing organizational change and overcoming resistance to change in order to maximize the positive impact on organizational performance.

2.2. Employees’ Competition

The interactions between employees in the organization are important to grant smooth operations and generate acceptable results [15]. These interactions can be affected by internal and external factors like leadership involvement, competition among employees, employee attitude and emotional intelligence. These interactions factors need to be analyzed carefully by management to avoid negative impact on the employees’ performance. Such organizational behavior factors had great effect on motivation as well as significant impact on employees’ productivity [16]. Moreover, hierarchical culture is structured of qualities, beliefs, different states of mind, standards, conduct of representatives and their desires. However, the strong organizational culture is beneficial to elevate employee’s accomplishment. Moreover, the change in the cultural roles of the organization changes the employees thinking as well as their perspective [17].

Additionally, firms are focused on particular programs that are running different campaigns internally, like HPWP (High-Performance-Working-Practice). The HPWP is HR (human resources) practice to motivate the employees’ competition with each other. Such practice originates challenging objectives to resolve emerging threats and enhance the employee’s commitment level, participation and performance efficiency [18]. Eventually, an employee shows high productivity, efficiency, job commitment and effectiveness in dealing with a corporate operation when positively competing with another employee [19]. Hence, the strategy that creates the abundance effect on the positive employees’ competition includes the formulation of employees’ objectives.

Consequently, management focus on formulating the risk management objectives for their employees to make them more active towards resolving negative competition issues. Moreover, dealing with risk by self-assessment and motivation encourage individuals to work with more commitment and enhance their satisfaction level [20]. In addition, organizations are showing significant efforts in resolving the work environmental issues by developing the essential strategies [21]. Those strategies protect the company interest from the negative employees’ competition. Similarly, management build strong relationship with the employees to enhance their comfort levels. Specifically, with unclear employee’s goal, the company target can be met wastefully. Thus, the organization requires healthy employees’ competition that influences their performance [22].

Furthermore, individual has an alternate blend and quality of necessities. Few people are driven by accomplishment while others are concentrating on security. Respectively, only empowering employees and increasing their participations will improve the positive competition conditions in the organization. However, they want to fulfil their demands and necessities by their own. Further, this process increases the loyalty of the employees towards corporate goals [23]. Hence, they should be responsible for making their strategic concepts based on personal needs to overcome distraction in their assigned tasks and avoid negative competition which will impact the organizational aim directly.

Similarly, employees that are highly committed with organizational values, beliefs, culture, and strategies are significant source of competitive advantage in the organization. Because they can compete with each other and improve the company position with enhanced productivity and efficiency. Moreover, the experience of dissimilar employees is different from each other. Therefore, assigning similar objectives to them will not enhance their productivity unless employees’ competition environment is created and enhanced by management rewards system. Conversely, where employees are asked to make their objectives, they show high creativity to achieve those targets through competitive tactics including inspiration, apprising pressure, persuasion, coalition, personal attraction, ingratiation, legitimation, exchange, and collaboration. Other than that, individuals show high involvement towards goals, which make them compete on effective strategies as per their capabilities to perform a specific task [24].

2.3. Research Gap

As introduced in this research, the Saudi manufacturing sector experiences difficulties, such as employee resistance to change and the resulting impact on company operations. However, the reviewed literature about the association between employee competition and change management lacks a specific focus on this sector. Thus, addressing this gap would provide valuable insights for stakeholders in the Saudi manufacturing sector, enabling them to develop effective change management strategy and develop a healthy employees competition environment.

2.4. Conceptual Model (see Figure 1)

Figure 1. Conceptual diagram.

2.5. Hypothesis Statement

Null Hypothesis 1 (H01): Healthy employee competition does not have a significant impact on employee resistance to change in the Saudi manufacturing sector.

Null Hypothesis 2 (H02): Employees’ gender is not significantly moderating the employee competition in the Saudi manufacturing sector.

Null Hypothesis 3 (H03): There is no significant relationship between employees’ nationality and employee competition in the Saudi manufacturing sector.

Null Hypothesis 4 (H04): The association between employee’s education and employee resistance to change is not significant in the Saudi manufacturing sector.

Null Hypothesis 5 (H05): Employees’ position is not significantly moderating the employee resistance to change in the Saudi manufacturing sector.

3. Methodology

The researcher used both quantitative and qualitative research methods in this study. Independent observations were conducted. Moreover, the primary data was randomly collected to test the hypotheses using a deductive research approach.

3.1. Population and Sample

According to Saudi General Authority of Statistics (2023), there are 1,184,551 employees working in the manufacturing sector in Saudi Arabia as shown in Table 1. Moreover, this sector consists of diverse types of industries and multinational employees. The industrial institutions in this sector covered different economic activities like manufacturing of food products, manufacturing of clothes, manufacturing of fabricated metal products, transformative industries, etc. [25].

The population for the quantitative phase is all employees who are working in Saudi Arabian Manufacturing Sector. Since population size is known, by using simple random sampling method, the sample size required for this study was estimated under confidence level of 95 percent and 5 percent margin of error as 384 participants as indicated in the sample size table issued by the Research Advisors website [26].

Table 1. Saudi Arabian manufacturing sector labour force summary.

GOSI-Tables 3-8 -
Manufacturing

Nationality

Saudi

Non-Saudi

Total

Male

210,562

851,315

1,061,877

Female

113,778

8896

122,674

Total

324,340

860,211

1,184,551

Source: [25].

3.2. Study Tool

Quantitative primary data was gathered through a survey questionnaire, while qualitative primary data was acquired through face-to-face interviews. The used survey design was cross-sectional. The questionnaire survey collected data was analyzed statistically using a five-point Likert scale. The quantitative survey responses report was extracted from Surveymonky.com at the end of April 2019. While the face-to-face interviews were conducted at the end of May 2019.

Additionally, for the qualitative phase, the selected Factory population was 200 employees. Specifically, purposive sampling technique was used to select the required employees for the face-to-face interviews. The researcher selected this sampling method due to the respondents knowledgeable and experience in make to order manufacturing industry. This sampling technique was followed to ensure that all population categories had equal chance to provide their feedback. Moreover, as indicated by Fridlund and Hildingh (2000), one to thirty interviewees were common sample size in qualitative studies [27]. Accordingly, 30 employees were selected to participate in this research face-to-face interviews.

The researcher used simple and clear English to design the interview questions. This made it possible for the respondents to provide their feedback comfortably. Furthermore, the researcher clarified the questions to the respondents for easy comprehension. The researcher also controlled the data collection through flexible dialogue and discussion sessions. Specifically, structured interview guide was provided by the researcher to enhance the discussion about the employee’s completion and change management. The following questions were used to evaluate the impact of healthy employee competition on employee resistance to change in that factory.

1) How would you describe the level of competition among employees in your department or team?

2) What has been your experience with change initiatives or new processes being implemented in the factory?

3.3. Questionnaire Reliability

The reliability of the study questionnaire was verified by Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient. The Kuder-Richardson Formula (KR-20) is used to determine internal consistency or reliability by calculating alpha for a survey [28].

α= K K1 [ 1 i=1 K p i q i σ X 2 ]

Applying the above formula using Microsoft Excel 2016, the following calculation was obtained:

Number of questions that used (1 to 5) scale is K = 39

Sum of the item variances is = 42.765

Variance of total score is = 186.529

Cronbach’s alpha is = (39/38) × (1 − (42.765/186.529)) = 0.791

The value of 0.791 of Cronbach Alpha coefficient indicates that the used scale is respectable and internally consistent. Moreover, it indicates a statistically acceptable level since it is greater than (0.7) and simply being presented in the study without further interpretation [29].

3.4. Questionnaire Validity

Validity test was conducted to evaluate the questionnaire ability in capturing the relationships between the variables and independent variable. Content validity ratio (CVR) was used to find the Content Validity Index [30]. Intently, fifteen experts were nominated as panelists to validate the survey questionnaire. They evaluated the instrument items based on scoring each item from 1 to 3 (1—not necessary, 2—useful but not essential, 3—essential).

Moreover, using the below formula, CVR was calculated for each item:

CVR = (NeN/2)/(N/2)

In which the Ne is the number of panelists indicating “essential” and N is the total number of panelists. Moreover, a content validity index of 0.49 and above is considered as acceptable item as indicated by Lawshe Table for fifteen panelists [30]. As calculated in Table 2, questionnaire items CVRs were above 0.49 which means they have acceptable level of significance‏ to be‏ used.

Table 2. Calculating of CVR for instrument items by fifteen experts.

Items

Ne

CVR

Interpretation

QQ17

13

0.73

Above 0.49 (acceptable item)

QQ18

12

0.6

Above 0.49 (acceptable item)

QQ19

13

0.73

Above 0.49 (acceptable item)

QQ20

13

0.73

Above 0.49 (acceptable item)

QQ21

13

0.73

Above 0.49 (acceptable item)

3.5. Analysis Techniques

In the quantitative analysis, statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel 2016. Descriptive analysis was applied to analyze the collected primary data for demographic variables. Moreover, research questions and findings were evaluated using Regression test, Chi-Square Test, Spearman’s r, Independent Sample t-test, and ANOVA test. In the qualitative analysis, the researcher utilized a content analysis approach to analyze the gathered data. Accordingly, and as shown in Table 3, the total participants in the shared questionnaire were 578 employees.

Table 3. Collected primary data summary.

Number of responders

Category

Frequency

Percentage

566

Gender

Female

36

0.0636

Male

530

0.9364

574

Nationality

Saudi

476

0.8293

Non-Saudi

98

0.1707

563

Education

Secondary School or less

155

0.2753

Bachelor’s Degree

335

0.595

Master’s Degree

68

0.1208

PhD

5

0.0089

564

Position

Production and Site Technicians

179

0.3174

Administrations and Engineering

235

0.4167

Middle Management

114

0.2021

Top Management

36

0.0638

Total number of participants

578

1

Source: Primary Data.

4. Analysis and Discussion

The main objective of this study is to analyze the relationship between employees’ competition and change management in Saudi manufacturing sector. The researcher used below survey questionnaire items to analysis this relationship.

Table 4. Survey questionnaire items.

Items (17 to 21)

TR

SD

D

N

A

SA

17-Recognition received from other team member indicates healthy employees’
competition towards goal attainment.

F

515

5

25

56

288

141

P

89.10%

0.97%

4.85%

10.87%

55.92%

27.38%

M=

4.04

Mo=

4

Md=

4

18-Colleague feedback about management changes in my job influence my productivity.

F

515

9

49

77

293

87

P

89.10%

1.75%

9.51%

14.95%

56.89%

16.89%

M=

3.78

Mo=

4

Md=

4

19-Equal opportunities and encouragement reduce employee’s resistance to change.

F

516

5

13

24

257

217

P

89.27%

0.97%

2.52%

4.65%

49.81%

42.05%

M=

4.29

Mo=

4

Md=

4

20-In my company, competition among
the employees leads to improve their
experience to attain the targets.

F

513

8

19

50

256

180

P

88.75%

1.56%

3.70%

9.75%

49.90%

35.09%

M=

4.13

Mo=

4

Md=

4

21-Healthy employee’s competition is
positively linked to company performance and growth.

F

515

1

21

52

237

204

P

89.10%

0.19%

4.08%

10.10%

46.02%

39.61%

M=

4.21

Mo=

4

Md=

4

Source: Primary Data. NOTE: M = Mean, Mo = Mode, Md = Median, TR = Total number of responders per item, SD = Strongly Disagreed, D = Disagreed, N = Neutral, A = Agreed, SA = Strongly Agreed, F = Frequency and P = Percentage.

The study findings in Table 4 show that the mean of the respondents’ feedback about the five questions were 4.04, 3.78, 4.29, 4.13 and 4.21 respectively. The average of these means is 4.09. Additionally, a comparison on these items showed that the number of participants who opposed and disagreed was 155 out of 2574 (6.02 percent). While those who were neutral were 259 (10.06 percent). However, those who concurred were 2160 (83.92 percent). Hence, the range of percentages of the opposed employees’ group and the undecided employees’ group were lower compared to the concurred employees’ group. That indicates the employees’ competition is corelated with change management.

Consequently, the respondents agreed that recognition received from their counterparty employee influence the organizational environment and leads to healthy employees’ competition (mean = 4.04). They also partially agreed that feedback from their colleagues about management change improves their productivity (mean = 3.78). Moreover, they believed that equality and encouragement ameliorate their acceptance to change and reduce resistance (mean = 4.29). Also, they respected the competition that leads to wealthy experience (mean = 4.13) and reflect better performance and company growth (mean = 4.21). Thus, healthy employees’ competition had positive impact on the employees’ performance and can lead to organizational growth.

In addition, to test if there is significant difference between the means of the responses about the impact of employees’ competition on their resistance to change, several t-test and ANOVA test were conducted as shown in Table 5 and Table 6 respectively.

Table 5. Showing the results of t-test.

CHANGE MANAGEMENT

Item 18

Item 19

EMPLOYEESCOMPETITION

Item 17

Item 21

Mean

3.7767

4.2943

Mean

4.0388

4.2078

Standard deviation

0.8989

0.7559

Standard deviation

0.8148

0.7973

Variance

0.808

0.5714

Variance

0.6639

0.6357

Sample

515

513

Sample

515

515

Probability P-Value

1.70E−22

Probability P-Value

0.0008

t Stat

−9.994

t Stat

−3.3629

t Critical two-tail

1.9623

t Critical two-tail

1.9623

(t[1026] = −9.994, p < 0.05)

(t[1028] = −3.3629, p < 0.05)

After comparing the responses between Item 18 and Item 19 which are colleagues’ feedback about change management, the P-Value from t-test was (1.7E−22) less than 0.05 and the absolute t-stat value was (9.994) greater than t-Critical (1.9623); (t[1026] = −9.994, p < 0.05). Hence, there was significant difference between the means of the data collected in Item 18 and Item 19 which was most likely reflecting the real intrinsic differences in the population, and they were not by chance. Similarly, after comparing the responses between Item 17 and Item 21 about employees’ competition, the P-Value from t-test was (0.0008) which is less than 0.05 and the absolute t-stat value was (3.3629) greater than t-Critical (1.9623); (t[1028] = −3.3629, p < 0.05). Hence, there was significant difference between the data collected in Item 17 and Item 21 which was most likely reflecting the real intrinsic differences in the population, and they were not by chance as well. Therefore, the collected data can be used for the research, as the observed difference between the sample means is statistically significant (p < 0.05). Moreover, the sample size is adequate and contains valuable information that can be leveraged to address the research question or hypothesis.

Additionally, ANOVA test was conducted to compare the differences between the means of Item 17, Item 20 and Item 21 as shown in Table 6. After comparing the responses about the competition among the employees, the P-Value from ANOVA test was (0.004258) less than 0.05 and F-value was (5.478) greater than F-Critical (3.0016); (F[2, 1540] = 5.478, p < 0.05). Hence, there was significant difference between the data collected in Item 17, Item 20, and Item 21. Moreover, Tukey-Kramer multiple comparisons test was conducted and led to no differences accrued between Item 17 and Item 20 as well as between Item 20 and Item 21. While there was difference between Item 17 and Item 21. Therefore, the means of the collected data about the competition among the employees were less likely reflecting the real intrinsic differences in the population. However, the ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer results indicate that the data of Item 17 and Item 21can be used for this research. Hence, the statistically significant differences among Item 17 and Item 21 means can provide valuable insights about the research objective.

Table 6. Showing the results of ANOVA test for employees’ competition items.

EMPLOYEES’ COMPETITION

Item 17

Item 20

Item 21

Mean

4.0388

4.1326

4.2078

Standard deviation

0.8148

0.8489

0.7973

Variance

0.6639

0.7207

0.6357

Sample

515

513

515

Probability P-Value

0.004258

F Value

5.478

F Critical

3.0016

(F[2, 1540] = 5.478, p < 0.05)

Tukey-Kramer
Multiple Comparisons

Absolute Difference

Critical Range

Results

Item 17 to Item 20

0.0938

0.12

Not Different

Item 17 to Item 21

0.169

0.12

Different

Item 20 to Item 21

0.0752

0.12

Not Different

4.1. Hypothesis 1: Employees’ Competition Impact

The researcher evaluated the impact of healthy employees’ competition on their resistance towards the changes. That was analyzed by the first null hypothesis. The null Hypothesis (H01) was “Healthy employee competition does not have a significant impact on employee resistance to change in the Saudi manufacturing sector”. Accordingly, researcher analyzed the employees’ opinions for the five statements regarding employee’s competition and change management using regression test. The results are summarized in Table 7.

Table 7. Showing the results of regression test.

Healthy employees’ competition and Employee resistance to change

Regression Statistics (Means)

Multiple R

0.4694

t-Stat

−12.052

R Square

0.2203

F-Value

145.243

P-value

1.24E−29

Lower 95%

−0.5354

Observations

516

Upper 95%

−0.3853

Linear Equation

Y = −0.4604X + 3.8624

(r = 0.4694, F[1, 514] = 145.2433, p < 0.05)

According to the results shown in Table 7, researcher found that healthy employees’ competition had significant effects on employees’ resistance to change. Regression test was conducted to verify the correlation between the means of the respondents’ feedback about the healthy employees’ completion (means of items 17 and 21) and their feedback about change management resistance (means of items 18 and 19). Accordingly, the mean of the respondents’ feedback about employees’ competition was significantly related to the mean of the respondents’ feedback about employee’s resistance to change since P-value was (1.24E−29) less than 0.05. However, the correlation coefficient R was (0.4694) not closed to one which indicates feeble linear relationship. Therefore, employees’ competition factor was moderating the employees’ resistance to change to some extent. Even though, the model was significant (r = 0.4694, F[1, 514] = 145.2433, p < 0.05). The coefficient of determination (R2 = 0.2203) explains that 22 percent variance in employee’s resistance to change was accounted by healthy employees’ competition at Saudi manufacturing sector.

Furthermore, the relationship plot that shown in Figure 2 indicates linear relationship between the mean of the respondents’ feedback about the employees’ competition and the predicted employee’s resistance to change. Moreover, percentage of reduction in employees’ resistance due to healthy employees’ competition can be predicted using the linear formula (Y = −0.4604X + 3.8624). Therefore, the null hypothesis (H01) “Healthy employee competition does not have a significant impact on employee resistance to change in the Saudi manufacturing sector” was rejected.

Figure 2. Regression analysis (employees’ competition mean and their resistance mean).

4.2. The Employees’ Demography Analysis

In order to determine if employees’ demography is moderating the employees’ competition or employee resistance to change, several Chi Square test analyses were conducted. The respondent’s Gender and Nationality were studied to evaluate their relationship with healthy employee competition. While the respondent’s Education and Position were analyzed to assess if they moderate the employee resistance to change.

4.2.1. Hypothesis 2: Employees’ Gender as Moderator of Employees’ Competition

Chi Square test was conducted to test if employee’s gender is significantly moderate the relationship between healthy employees’ competition and employee’s resistance to change. Using the observed data in Table 8 obtained from the item 17 and item 21, the calculated X2 value was (9.7282) greater than the critical value (5.991); (X2 = [2, N = 1012] = 9.7282, p < 0.05).

Table 8. Observation data to test gender as moderator of employees’ competition.

Gender

Opposed
Employees

Undecided
Employees

Concurred
Employees

SUM

Female

3

14

47

64

Male

48

91

809

948

51

105

856

1012

That indicates the observed distribution was most likely not due to chance. Hence, healthy employees’ competition differed significantly because of employee’s gender. Therefore, the null hypothesis (H02) “Employees’ gender is not significantly moderating the employee competition in the Saudi manufacturing sector” should be rejected.

4.2.2. Hypothesis 3: Employees’ Nationality as Moderator of Employees’ Competition

Similarly, another chi-square test was conducted on the item 17 and item 21 to examine whether an employee’s nationality significantly moderates the relationship between healthy employee competition and employee resistance to change. Using the observed data in Table 9, the calculated chi-square value was 33.7679, which is greater than the critical value of 5.991 at the 0.05 significance level (X2 [2, N = 1018] = 33.7679, p < 0.05).

Table 9. Observation data to test Nationality as moderator of employees’ competition.

Nationality

Opposed
Employees

Undecided
Employees

Concurred
Employees

SUM

Saudi

30

75

733

838

Non-Saudi

21

31

128

180

51

106

861

1018

This indicates that the observed distribution is unlikely to have occurred by chance. Hence, healthy employees’ competition differed significantly because of employee’s nationality. Therefore, the null hypothesis (H03) “There is no significant relationship between employees’ nationality and employee competition in the Saudi manufacturing sector” should be rejected.

4.2.3. Hypothesis 4: Education as Moderator of Employees’ Resistance to Change

On the other hand, researcher analyzed the correlation between the education and employee’s resistance to change using Chi Square test on item 18 and item 19. Using the observed data in Table 10, the calculated X2 value was (9.2355) less than the critical value (12.592); (X2 = [6, N = 1005] = 9.2355, p < 0.05). That indicates the observed distribution was most likely due to chance. Hence, the employees’ resistance does not differ significantly because of employee’s education. Therefore, the null hypothesis (H04) “The association between employee’s education and employee resistance to change is not significant in the Saudi manufacturing sector” should NOT be rejected.

Table 10. Observation data to test education as moderator of employees’ resistance.

Education

Opposed
Employees

Undecided
Employees

Concurred
Employees

SUM

Secondary School or less

27

29

225

281

Bachelor’s Degree

35

53

494

582

Master’s Degree

8

16

110

134

PhD

2

1

5

8

72

99

834

1005

4.2.4. Hypothesis 5: Position as Moderator of Employees’ Resistance to Change

Additionally, Chi Square test was used to examine if employee’s position is significantly moderate the relationship between healthy employees’ competition and employee’s resistance to change. Using the observed data in Table 11 generated from item 18 and item 19, the calculated X2 value was (22.2295) greater than the critical value (12.952.); (X2 = [6, N = 1011] = 22.2295, p < 0.05).

Table 11. Observation data to test position as moderator of employees’ resistance.

Position

Opposed
Employees

Undecided Employees

Concurred Employees

SUM

Production and Site Technicians

36

32

247

315

Administrations and Engineering

14

45

361

420

Middle Management

18

13

175

206

Top Management

6

9

55

70

74

99

838

1011

That indicates the observed distribution was most likely not due to chance. Hence, healthy employees’ resistance varied significantly because of employee’s position. Therefore, the null hypothesis (H05) “Employees’ position is not significantly moderating the employee resistance to change in the Saudi manufacturing sector” should be rejected.

4.2.5. Findings

The researcher found that the relationship between healthy employee competition and employee resistance to change is significant. The competition factor is accounting for 22% of the variance in employees’ resistance to change in the Saudi manufacturing sector. Moreover, the finding implies that employee’s gender and nationality play crucial role in determining the level of healthy competition among the employees. Hence, socializations, expectations, motivations, cultural norms, values, and work preferences influence their competitive behaviors.

Furthermore, employee’s hierarchical position found moderates their level of resistance to organizational changes. That due to having different levels of investment, decision-making authority, and exposure to the potential impacts of change, which can influence their attitudes and behaviors towards the change process. On contrary, employee’s educational background does not play a significant role in determining their level of resistance to organizational changes within the Saudi manufacturing sector. Understanding these differences can help managers develop successful strategies to foster healthy competition and manage resistance to change in a diverse workforce.

5. Case Study and Implications

The case study was conducted in one of the panel board manufacturing factories in Dammam second industrial city. The factory population was 200 multinational employees, and the selected sample was 30 employees from deferent career level. The researcher analyzed the face-to-face interviews data using content analysis. The interview questions were:

1) How would you describe the level of competition among employees in your department or team?

2) What has been your experience with change initiatives or new processes being implemented in the factory?

Figure 3. Conceptual map for interviewees’ feedback about employees’ competition.

5.1. Content Analysis

After analyzing the participants’ feedback about employees’ competition impact on their resistance to change, codes and categories were grouped as shown the conceptual map in Figure 3. Respondents stated that over all employees’ competition helped them to improve their performance and attain the job objective faster. For instance, improving communication and being creative were result of healthy competition that support the employees and reduce their resistance. In addition, respondents believed that healthy employees’ competition keeps them focused, high spirited and motivated at work.

In addition, the results shown in Table 12 indicate that the considerable theme from interviewee’s feedback was related to the significant effect of employees’ competition on employees’ performance. Specifically, 49 percent of the participants believed that healthy employees’ competition motivates them to be dedicated and creative. Other 20 percent of participants predicted that employees’ competition enhances their ability to accept changes and reduce their resistance to change significantly.

Table 12. Categories and themes from interviewees’ feedback about employees’ competition.

Category

Frequency

Percentage

Themes

1

Effect on employee

29

49%

Healthy employees’ competition motivates employee to be dedicated and creative.

2

Significance

12

20%

Healthy employees’ competition had
significant positive impact on reducing employees’ resistance.

3

Improvement

11

18%

Healthy employees’ competition enhances the employees’ performance and efficiency.

4

No effect

5

8%

Employees’ Competition is waste of time and effect team work negatively.

5

Rule

3

5%

Employees’ Competition should be ethical, and employees should not be compared according to competition outcomes.

While 18 percent of the participants believed that employees’ competition had significant impact on performance. On the other hand, eight percent of the interviewees expected unfavorable impact of employees’ competition which could be waste of time and resources squandering. Moreover, it may cause adverse effect on teamwork if employee recognition is based on competition results comparison which is not ethical as stated by five percent of the participants.

5.2. Case Study Findings

Overall, the participates’ feedbacks appear to suggest that healthy competition among employees has been viewed positively by the employees in the factory. Particularly, they believed that it motivates them, reduces resistance to change, and improves performance. Moreover, it should be implemented in an ethical manner without excessive comparisons between the employees. However, five percent of the feedbacks showed concerns about negative impact of employees’ competition on teamwork and could cause toxic work environment.

6. Conclusions

Several important conclusions were obtained from the findings of this study. The relationship between employees’ competition and change management was significantly noticed in the Saudi manufacturing sector. Explicitly, the research indicates that there is a significant relationship between healthy employees’ competition and their resistance to organizational change within these companies. Specifically, the resistance of employees toward organizational changes can be reduced by 22 percent if management maintains healthy employees’ competition. Moreover, the study also examined the impact of employees’ competition on their overall performance. The results show that competition does have a significant influence on employee performance in the Saudi manufacturing sector.

Additionally, the research identified two key moderating factors that influence the relationship between employees’ competition and resistance to change. Firstly, employee gender and nationality were found moderating the level of healthy competition environment. Secondly, employees’ hierarchical position moderates their resistance to changes, while their level of education did not have a significant impact.

In conclusion, this study provides valuable insights about the association between employees’ competition, resistance to organizational change, and overall performance for the companies that operate in the Saudi manufacturing sector. The findings suggest that organizations in this industry should carefully build adaptable strategies to encourage healthy competition environment in their workplace in order to facilitate successful change initiatives and drive organizational efficiency.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

[1] Cawsey, T.F., Deszca, G. and Ingols, C. (2016) Organizational Change: An Action Oriented Toolkit. 3rd Edition, Sage Publications.
[2] Lauer, T. (2019) Change Management: Grundlagen und Erfolgsfaktoren. Springer.
[3] Frank, L. and Mohamed, S. (2024) Change Management and Implementation Strategies: Exploring Strategies for Implementing Strategic Plans within Organizations and Managing Change Effectively.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379270007
[4] Mwakuduwa, E.N., Njeri, I. and Makungu, T. (2024) Change Management Strategies and Operational Performance of the Hospitality Industry in Selected Coastal Counties, Kenya. International Academic Journal of Economics and Finance, 4, 389-423.
[5] Diefenbach, T. (2007) The Managerialistic Ideology of Organisational Change Management. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20, 126-144.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810710715324
[6] Stolzenberg, K. and Heberle, K. (2009) Change Management: Veränderungsprozesse erfolgreich gestalten-Mitarbeiter mobilisieren. 2nd Edition, Springer Medizin Verlag.
[7] Moran, J.W. and Brightman, B.K. (2000) Leading Organizational Change. Journal of Workplace Learning, 12, 66-74.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620010316226
[8] Kotter, J.P. (2007) Overcoming the Four Barriers to Change. Harvard Business Review, 85, 98-103.
[9] Bridges, W. and Bridges, S. (2016) Managing the Human Side of Change. Leader to Leader, No. 76, 35-41.
[10] Kim, W.C. and Mauborgne, R. (1998) Turning Resistance into Commitment. Harvard Business Review, 76, 65-74.
[11] Battilana, J. and Casciaro, T. (2013) The Network Secrets of Great Change Agents. Harvard Business Review, 91, 62-68.
[12] Heckelman, W. (2017) Sustaining Change: Long-Term Effects of Change Management Strategies. OD Practitioner, 49, 28-34.
[13] Akunne, C.S. and Ibrahim, U.A. (2021) An Evaluation of the Impact of Change Management on Employee Performance in the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission. Open Journal of Business and Management, 9, 2591-2604.
https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2021.95142
[14] Abdel-Satar, S.I., Ragheb, M.A.S. and Ghanem, A. (2022) The Impact of Change Management on the Quality of Health Service Provided “the Moderating Role of Change Resistance”: Field Study of Egyptian Private and Government Hospitals. OALib, 9, e8354.
https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1108354
[15] Doghan, M.A. and Albar, S. (2015) A Study on Influence of Motivation Factors on Employees Performance in Private Schools in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 3, 179-187.
https://doi.org/10.4236/jhrss.2015.34024
[16] Osabiya, B.J. (2015) The Effect of Employees Motivation on Organizational Performance. Journal of Public Administration and Policy Research, 7, 62-75.
https://doi.org/10.5897/jpapr2014.0300
[17] Shahzad, F. (2014) Impact of Organizational Culture on Employees’ Job Performance: An Empirical Study of Software Houses in Pakistan. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 24, 219-227.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ijcoma-07-2012-0046
[18] Prince, N.R. (2015) The Influence of Competition and Business Strategy on Organizations’ Use of High-Performance Work Systems. Doctor of Philosophy in Business Administration, University of Illinois.
[19] Boat, R. and Taylor, I.M. (2015) Patterns of Change in Psychological Variables Leading up to Competition in Superior versus Inferior Performers. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 37, 244-256.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2014-0216
[20] Kaplan, R.S. and Mikes, A. (2016) Risk Management the Revealing Hand. SSRN Electronic Journal.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2744133
[21] Altalhi, H. (2018) The Study of Measuring the Level of Organizational Agility at Yanbu Colleges and Institutes in Saudi Arabia. Asia Pacific Journal of Advanced Business and Social Studies, 4, 252-262.
[22] Luft, J. (2016) Cooperation and Competition among Employees: Experimental Evidence on the Role of Management Control Systems. Management Accounting Research, 31, 75-85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2016.02.006
[23] Dobre, O. (2013) Employee Motivation and Organizational Performance. Review of Applied Socio-Economic Research, 5, 53-60.
[24] Lam, M., O’Donnell, M. and Robertson, D. (2015) Achieving Employee Commitment for Continuous Improvement Initiatives. International Journal of Operations& Production Management, 35, 201-215.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ijopm-03-2013-0134
[25] GOSI, T. G. O. for S. I. (2023) Register-Based Labour Market Statistics-Q3, 2023 (Table 3-8 and Table 3-9). General Authority for Statistics (GASTAT).
https://www.stats.gov.sa/en/814
[26] The Research Advisors Web (2006) Sample Size Table.
https://www.research-advisors.com/tools/SampleSize.htm
[27] Fridlund, A.J. and Hildingh, C. (2000) Health Behaviour and Health-Related Quality of Life among Persons with Influence Disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 22, 412-422.
[28] Kuder, G.F. and Richardson, M.W. (1937) The Theory of the Estimation of Test Reliability. Psychometrika, 2, 151-160.
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02288391
[29] Taber, K.S. (2017) The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Research in Science Education, 48, 1273-1296.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
[30] Lawshe, C.H. (1975) A Quantitative Approach to Content Validity. Personnel Psychology, 28, 563-575.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x

Copyright © 2025 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.